DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

I wonder what the movie budget would be? And, while I'm at it, what is the highest budget movie ever?

The shorts were actually done by the guy who WOULD have directed the movie, which would have been a much higher budgeted version. Instead they had him make these and tie them into Halo 3 the game.

Far as I know, Spiderman 3 has the highest budget ever, while Titanic is still the king of sales with something like $1.8 Billion. Although if you adjust the money, Gone With The Wind is still the biggest of all time.

I bet that Halo would probably be about $300 Million to make. Although, most of the alien enemy, vehicles and environment could easily be cgi so I dunno where all the money would go. You wouldnt even need a big star to play master chief. I would just use a generic large guy like they did for Predator and use the guy who does the voice in the game to do it for the movie.

In adjusted dollars, I think it's Gone with the Wind... Not sure. But Spider-Man 3 was wasn't it? But it seems everytime some big blockbuster comes out it's "The most expensive movie ever made", so it's hard to tell. Although I'm sure the all-knowing Wikipedia would have the answer.

V for Vendetta had other characters to hang the story on - wheras Halo would pretty much just have other people in masks and monsters. There is not much of a story to Halo - Guy shoots stuff.

I am a fan of the Halo games but would not see a Halo film. Just not interested at all. Agree with Nic that there has not yet been a good film made from a videogame. Its the interactive element of the story that makes games enjoyable, when you take that away and just watch a film made of game cut scenes - its pointless.

I take it you've never played the games then, cause it's a prefect representation of the the games in movie form. Complete with the atmosphere and all. I think a lot of people would agree with me on this. It's also definitely the highest rated game-to-movie adaptation so far. At least from what i've read.

Anyway, i respect your opinion of course, just find it a bit odd.

EDIT: I see now that not all critics liked this after having had a look over at rottentomatoes. However, it did get great reviews in Swedish press, where it was hailed as the best adaptation of a video game yet, i guess that's what i was referring to. Anyway, I loved it and would gladly see another Silent Hill film. But then again; i'm a sucker for sequels as you can see if you have a look at my DVD collection.

Also, i don't think Doom was all that horrible. It wasn't great, but highly enjoyable.

scottmck wrote: That's another reason the studios are wary of sticking loads of money into a movie - no one will be able to see whoever gets to play him. Either that or they get him to take his helmet off, Judge Dredd-style and we all know what that meant... Worked for "V for Vendetta" though, didn't it? Hugo Weaving never took off the mask and it worked out. I don't know much about Halo, but it seems like it would just be a futuristic 300. Don't flame me for that statement, I honestly have no idea about the game or its characters, and am only giving my impression of it.

Director7 wrote: Intergalactic Ponce wrote: I don't know the game but every picture I see of it is a guy wearing a full face helmet. Honest query, does the helmet ever come off?Never does, I guess that's his "mystique".

That's another reason the studios are wary of sticking loads of money into a movie - no one will be able to see whoever gets to play him. Either that or they get him to take his helmet off, Judge Dredd-style and we all know what that meant...

Intergalactic Ponce wrote: Maybe I'm generalising here, your average video geek will more than likely wait for the DVD or dowload the film (legally or illegally) rather than venture out into the fresh air to go to a cinema.Unfortunately that's probably very true.

Intergalactic Ponce wrote: I don't know the game but every picture I see of it is a guy wearing a full face helmet. Honest query, does the helmet ever come off?Never does, I guess that's his "mystique".

Your breakdown of the ticket sales while detailed isn't realistic. Not every member of a family is a video game nut so I wouldn't think you'd get the whole family taking a trip to the cinema. Neither would the resulting film reward multiple viewings based on past history regarding video game tie-in's.

Plus, and maybe I'm generalising here, your average video geek will more than likely wait for the DVD or dowload the film (legally or illegally) rather than venture out into the fresh air to go to a cinema. Chances are that a significant proportion of the intended audience will not pay a penny in ticket or DVD sales to the film company to recoup it's production costs.

But none of that is a reason not to make the film. When someone comes along and pitches their particular take on the movie to a studio and they can demonstrate that they can do it at a modest cost then Fox (or whoever) will probably green light it. I'm sure even tonk like Doom made it's money back so if it can be done cheaply then why not.

I don't know the game but every picture I see of it is a guy wearing a full face helmet. Honest query, does the helmet ever come off?

scottmck wrote: The studios dropped out of making the movie because it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.Isn't that what typical Blockbusters cost though?

scottmck wrote: Remember that each copy of Halo costs a hell of a lot more than a cinema ticket.True, but a videogame is 1 sale per family & you own it, think of it this way;

1 Copy of Halo = $60 = Whole family/friends playing, and you own it.

1 Ticket Halo Movie = $20 = 1 per family member/friends = x5 = $100 --- You'll have repeat viewers, the videogame audience and a new movie goer audience who never played the game.

So they'll make even more than $60 in just 1 household, and remember that it was FOX's involvement, so think double dips and collectors editions for the DVD/BluRay release.

They'd more then make their money back.

Franchise wrote: I've read up about the games and just feel there isn't enough information in them to justify a movie.I would've thought the appeal to the game IS the story. Few say it's the greatest FPS because of the controls or something. It's because of the bad-ass 1 man army Jack Bauer like charachter.

Nic Mall wrote: Name 1 game to movie conversion that has been good. And I mean goodGood point, before I typed back, I sat and thought, but, that can't be a reason not to make it.

The story would be a more than compelling movie, as long as they get a could Cast and Director to portray all that.

You'll have to reach a little further I think. Res Evil was not good. It was loud, stupid and empty headed (like most PWSA films). Silent Hill can't comment on. Haven't seen.

Did I say most of PWSA's films. I meant 98.5%. The first half hour of Event Horizon did it's job but that's about it. The rest of his cinematic output is the sum total of the noise you get in your head if you humm and try to match frequency with a vacuum cleaner as it hoovers the carpet.

To me, there's a ton of hype about it and that's great. I think video games are good distractions. I wouldn't see the movie though. I've read up about the games and just feel there isn't enough information in them to justify a movie.